The further and continuing adventures of the girl who sat in the back of your homeroom, reading and daydreaming.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Poly-ticks Ticks On

In the case of Iran it seems to be a countdown, though to just what, exactly, nobody knows. Not to fear, our Prez is in the thick of it, uttering bland platitudes. Ooo, that'll help! He reminded 'em, "The world is watching," and I am sure Iran's long-established sensitivity to the court of world opinion will keep things in line. Right?

While anyone opposing the whackjob Ahmadinejad rates at least an "attaboy!" from me and I'm always glad to see people stand up to a government,[1] for once I agree with the experts: let's just watch.[2] I'll make popcorn!

Update: Conservative Mike Pence introduces legislation saying the same kind of stuff the President had said and is hissed at by a Huffie. Guess it all depends on who's saying that fair elections are good an' shootin' people who protest them is bad?_________________________________1. Yes, even the moonbattiest Left and wingnuttiest Right; the more that people -- even annoying people -- get in the habit of suspiciously examining everything governments do, the better off we all are. It's the times popular opinion favors the political bosses too uncritically that things go the furthest wrong -- and it works exactly the same when the pendulum swings the other way. 'Tain't the New Boss that will fix things, it'll be you learnin' to fix 'em for yourself. Or at least you learning to watch the leader-types like a hawk after mice. You're payin' em, after all.

2. I know, they've got a nuke program. This is a problem Israel has a history of fixing in that region. And still none of our business.

For some reason, the prevalent attitude regarding guns doesn't seem to scale to possession of nukes, does it?

Have a gun, hold a gun, no problem. USE a gun, aye, there's the rub - you face the consequences of the ACTION, not the POSSESSION.

Iran has nukes - what's the difference? Iran USES nukes - face the consequences. A large glass car-park, stretching from Tehran south to Qom, and north to the coast, glowing softly green comes to mind.

I don't necessarily disagree, Og, but where do we draw the line between "...every terrible weapon of the soldier is the birth-right of every American...", and the "... too terrible to contemplate possession by anybody not already in our gang..." that dominates the nuclear proliferation debate?

Somehow Russia, the US, France, Britain, China and anybody else in the "Nuclear Club" get to tell everybody else what they can spend their defence dollars on.

As a consequence that "bogey-man" aspect of nuclear bombs colours the debate on civilian use of reactors for electrical power generation.

I understand (at least intellectually) the potential horrors of a nuclear attack by Iran or some other rogue state, and I can understand why the line is drawn as it is. I just find it interesting that that line MOVES depending on the personal viewpoint.

Here we are discussing the concept that possession of nuclear bombs is something to be restricted because of the potential for horrific consequences (the possible death of cities full of people) - while a VPC supporter is convinced that the possession of firearms is something to be restricted because of the potential for horrific consequences (the death of a single individual).

I think the line of "handheld weapon capable of potentially killing 1.2 people per second" and "WMD capable of obliterating a city" is a pretty clear one. And the fact that it moves depends specifically on the willingness of the mouse who wields it to detonate it, thus flexing the muscles in it's wiener. Nothing makes an Ahmadinnerjacket feel more virile than knowing the entire USA is frightened of him. The litmus test is willingness to use.

Og, much as I like you, that limb is fixin' to break off if you go out on it any farther.

I'm about as happy Iran is workin' towards The Bomb -- and that North Korea and Pakistan already have 'em -- as I am that bad guys have handguns. But they do and the question is, who's gonna stop 'em, and how?

But I'm only too convinced that humans are rationalizing animals, not rational ones, which means some loonie with an A-bomb may indeed believe he is deploying it for the finest and most noble purpose. So tell me, who judges?

it is probably not possible to stop a goblin from getting a firearm. they are common and easily acquired. It is remarkably easy to stop a nation from building or purchasing nuclear weapons. The technologies to do so are not nearly as easily mastered as the concepts of firearms manufacture, and the transfer of existing known weapons is relatively easy to monitor, at a global scale. Otherwise Saddam would already have had them, and used them. Imagine what would happen to the shooting community if the primer supply disapeared tomorrow. Now imagine a technology easily ten thousand times as complex. And all the things that you can do to stop them. Limiting access to certain types of machining technology. Limiting access to certain types of electronics. Limiting access to any number of things.I have to sign documents so that specific types of knowledge that I am privy to cannot be disclosed outside of the country- all my colleagues as well.

I'm sure someone out there will be pleased to tell me that it is perfectly simple to build a nuclear device, and in theory, it is- but to build something effective, it's a lot more difficult than you'd think. Most people can't even grasp the difficulty involved in making a soft drink can, let alone a nuclear device.

"I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly propose to do right; that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions."